Common Practical Questions Concerning the Melachah of Erasing [Erasing, Part 2]

Common Practical Questions Concerning the Melachah of Erasing [Erasing, Part 2]

Topics of the Article

Is it permitted to erase writing by destroying it, such as breaking an egg that has writing on it? To smoke on Yom Tov a cigarette that has writing on it? To tear packaging that has writing on it? To remove a tissue from a package that has writing on it, where removing the tissue separates the writing from itself? To cut a cake that has writing on it? To cut a cookie with writing stamped into it? To eat a cake or cookie with writing on it? To take apart a puzzle that children assembled? To put away magnetic letters with which children wrote on Shabbat? To put away a word-building game with which children played on Shabbat?

Erasing by Destroying the Writing

The primary prohibition is to erase writing directly. However, the common practical case among Torah-observant Jews, who refrain from using writing implements on Shabbat, involves situations in which writing is destroyed indirectly, while the purpose is to perform an entirely different action.

In the article in Part 1 on the melachah of erasing, we saw that although the Mishnah states that the prohibition is to erase in order to write — meaning that through the erasure the place of the writing becomes smooth and one can write another letter in its place — and one might have understood that the melachah of erasing is only creating a smooth space for writing, but that destroying writing without creating a new place for writing would not entail liability, for example scribbling over writing or tearing it. Nevertheless, the Biur Halachah (siman 340, section 3, s.v. hamochek) proves that any erasure that involves a constructive result is prohibited, and the reason the Mishnah described erasing in order to write is that with ordinary erasure, whose purpose is only to ruin the writing, the one who does so is exempt from a sin-offering and it is prohibited only rabbinically because he is causing damage; the Torah prohibited “melechet machshevet,” meaning a constructive labor. But in any case where there is a constructive result, even if no empty space was created through the erasure, there is a prohibition of erasing, and one is liable for it. The Biur Halachah brings several proofs for this definition of the prohibition of erasing.

In light of these points, we can define the prohibition of erasing as not the creation of an empty space, but the act of erasure itself. Therefore, scribbling is also considered erasing; and even if a person scribbles for his enjoyment and derives no benefit from the removal of the writing, he is indeed not liable by Torah law for this act, since he is damaging, but the Sages prohibited performing the melachah even in a destructive manner, and therefore it is prohibited by rabbinic law. However, where there is a constructive result in the act of scribbling, it is prohibited by Torah law.

In this article we will address many practical examples found in every home in which, on Shabbat, there is a situation of destroying writing, and we must discuss whether this is prohibited and how these matters can be done in a permitted manner.

Cutting a Cake with Writing on Shabbat

Question: A cake on which letters are written that are not part of the body of the cake itself — is there a way to eat it on Shabbat?

Answer: When the cake was cut before Shabbat , if the cut is between the letters , it is permitted to separate the pieces of cake from one another. But when the cut is through the middle of the letters, an adult may ask a child below bar mitzvah age to serve him a piece of cake, even though this separates the letters, and the adult may eat it only whole.

When the cake was not cut before Shabbat, if the cut would be through the middle of the letters , it is forbidden to cut it. Between the letters , one may ask a child below bar mitzvah age to cut it even for a significant need.

It is also possible to make the entire cake in a particular shape, such as a number or picture and the like, and then it may be cut on Shabbat.

Another suggestion when one wants to prepare writing on top of a cake is to make the writing in the center of the cake, leave that intact on Shabbat, and cut slices only around it.

Source of the Halachah: Gemara (Pesachim 37a); Responsa of the Rema (siman 119); Rema (Orach Chaim, siman 340, section 3); Taz (siman 340, subsection 2); Magen Avraham (siman 340, subsection 10); Maamar Mordechai (siman 340, subsection 2); Mishnah Berurah (siman 340, subsections 17, 22); Avnei Nezer (Orach Chaim, siman 210); Beit Yosef (Orach Chaim, siman 269); Azmera Lishmecha (issue 55).

Cutting a Cake and External Writing on It on Shabbat

Question: Is it permitted to eat a cookie that has a letter or picture written on it, which is not part of the cookie itself?

Answer: It is permitted to place the entire cookie into one’s mouth and eat it; the Chazon Ish is stringent in this regard.

It is forbidden to cut the cookie before putting it into one’s mouth. [If the cut is between one letter and another, see above regarding a cake on which letters are written].

If the letter or picture is part of the cookie itself, it is permitted to cut it before putting it into one’s mouth. The Chazon Ish is stringent in this as well.

If the cookie itself is made in a particular shape, or in the shape of letters, numbers and the like, it is permitted to cut it. [Some are stringent according to the view of the Chazon Ish].

Source of the Halachah — Gemara (Pesachim 37a); Taz (Orach Chaim, siman 340, subsection 2); Magen Avraham (siman 340, subsection 6); Mishnah Berurah (siman 340, subsection 15); Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim, siman 61). (Azmera Lishmecha, issue 159).

Protesting Against a Minor Who Cuts a Cake

Question: Must one protest against a minor who cuts a cake that has the form of a letter on it, where the letter is not part of the body of the cake?

Answer: In the Mordechai (Shabbat, remez 369) it is explained that one need not protest, and this is the halachic ruling.

However, the question arises whether it is also permitted to give him the cake directly, or only that if he took it himself, there is no need to protest.

In the Mordechai itself (Shabbat, remez 369), it is explained only that one need not protest against a minor who cuts a cake. But the Magen Avraham  (siman 340, subsection 5) and the Mishnah Berurah (siman 340, subsection 14) permitted even giving it to a minor directly. However, the Machatzit HaShekel (siman 340, subsection 5) wonders about the Magen Avraham, for there is a prohibition to give a forbidden item to a minor directly [the prohibition of sefiyah].

To explain his question, we will preface that with regard to a minor there are two different laws:

A. The law of education - a minor who has already reached the age of education, meaning the age at which he knows how to perform the mitzvah and understands its meaning, must be trained to observe the mitzvah.

B. The prohibition of sefiyah -  a minor who has not reached this age — there is no obligation to ensure that he performs the mitzvah, but it is forbidden to feed him something prohibited directly; this prohibition is called “the prohibition of sefiyah.” For example, it is forbidden to give a small baby a bottle with non-kosher milk directly, but if he found the bottle and took it himself, there is no obligation to take the bottle from him. [Although this is recommended, because non-kosher foods create negative character traits in a child].

To explain the opinion of the Magen Avraham and the Mishnah Berurah, it appears that they ruled so based on the position of the Rashba (Yevamot 114a; Responsa, part 1, siman 92), that with a rabbinic prohibition it is permitted to feed a minor directly when it is for the minor’s need. Rabbi Akiva Eiger (first edition, siman 15) ruled this as halachah, and the Mishnah Berurah cites it (Biur Halachah, siman 343). [See also Chayei Adam, principle 66]. Therefore, it is permitted to give a minor a cookie even if it has the form of a letter on it, and there is no need to worry that perhaps he will cut it and not put it into his mouth whole.

However, according to this, the permission applies only to a minor who has not yet reached the age of education, meaning that he is not of an age at which he already understands what the prohibition of Shabbat is. For the Rashba permitted only the prohibition of sefiyah, but did not exempt a minor from the law of education when it is for the minor’s need. [Although there is a view in Tosafot (Nazir 28b; Tosafot Yeshanim, Yoma 82a) that the law of education applies only to positive commandments, whereas with a negative prohibition, such as performing labor on Shabbat, there is only the prohibition of sefiyah but no obligation of education. However, halachah was not ruled this way, as is explained in Shulchan Aruch  (siman 343, section 1) and Mishnah Berurah (subsections 2–3)].

Source of the Halachah: Mordechai (Shabbat, remez 369); Magen Avraham (siman 340, subsection 5); Machatzit HaShekel (siman 340, subsection 5); Mishnah Berurah (siman 340, subsection 14); Kaf HaChaim (siman 340, subsection 29). (Azmera Lishmecha, issue 159).

Breaking an Egg with Writing on Shabbat

Question: An egg that has writing on it, such as a date stamp — is there a problem opening it on Shabbat out of concern for erasing ?

Answer: If it is impossible to be careful — one may be lenient.

Source of the Halachah: Since it is a psik reisha de-lo nicha lei in a rabbinic prohibition, and it is permitted in a case of need, as explained in Mishnah Berurah (siman 321, Shaar HaTziyun, subsection 68). Furthermore, it is a psik reisha de-lo nicha lei involving two rabbinic prohibitions, and it can be permitted; see Mishnah Berurah (siman 340, subsection 17; siman 314, subsection 11; siman 337, Shaar HaTziyun, subsection 2; subsection 10; Mishnah Berurah siman 336, subsection 25) and Chazon Ish (Orach Chaim, siman 61).

However, in Kaf HaChaim (siman 340, subsection 34) he writes that it is forbidden to break an egg that has writing on it.

It should be noted that if one can break the egg in such a way that he may succeed in breaking it not at the place of the writing, though it may break at the place of the writing, this is not considered a psik reisha and is therefore not forbidden under the law of psik reisha de-lo nicha lei.

Similarly, regarding smoking cigarettes on Yom Tov, if there is writing on the paper, the later authorities wrote (Pri Megadim, siman 511, Mishbetzot Zahav, subsection 2) that it is forbidden in a manner where the letters are erased, and it requires explanation why they did not permit it based on the above. (Azmera Lishmecha, issue 159).

Removing a Tissue from a Package on Shabbat

Question: Is it permitted to remove a tissue when, by doing so, one separates the letters on the two sides of the opening?

Answer: If there is no other package, it is permitted. Mishnah Berurah (siman 340, subsection 17). (Azmera Lishmecha, issue 159).

Taking Apart a Puzzle, Magnetic Letters, or a Word-Building Game

Regarding taking apart a puzzle that contains writing, dismantling writing formed with magnetic letters, a word-building game and the like, its law is like the law of writing. As we expanded upon in the article on writing, since there is a dispute about this, one should not play with it above bar mitzvah age, even though erasing is more lenient because it ruins the writing. However, children below bar mitzvah age may dismantle and put away the game. (Azmera Lishmecha, issue 55).

Another common topic is removing dirt from writing on Shabbat

Removing Wet Dirt

If a drop of ink or paint fell on a book, it is forbidden on Shabbat to moisten the place slightly in order to remove the paint so that we will be able to read the writing, or so that we will be able to rewrite what had been written underneath. This situation is more common with writing on parchment, or on the cover of a book, where water does not destroy the page, though it dirties the ink or paint and helps remove it. (Mishnah Berurah, siman 340, subsection 13).

Peeling Hardened Dirt from a Book

Another matter discussed by the later authorities is whether it is prohibited due to the melachah of erasing when a drop of wax or a different hardened dirt fell on the writing, and now it is impossible to read the writing underneath. The question arises whether peeling off the dirt is considered creating writing, or at least, if preparing the place for writing is prohibited, certainly if through preparation one can read it, the matter is prohibited.

We find 4 opinions on the matter:

A. The opinion of the Bach (Orach Chaim, siman 340, section 4) and many later authorities (Olat Shabbat, Magen Avraham, Taz, Eliyah Rabbah, Birkei Yosef) is that even when a drop of wax or other dirt fell on the writing, it is forbidden to peel the wax or dirt from the writing, for at present the place is obscured and cannot be read, and through the peeling action I render the place underneath fit so that we can read what is written there. (Mishnah Berurah, siman 340, subsection 10; Biur Halachah, s.v. she’al). See in Biur Halachah that perhaps the liability is due to writing and not due to erasing.

B. The Shevut Yaakov (part 2, siman 4) and the Chayei Adam (Nishmat Adam) disagreed with this and hold that peeling off the wax does not cause the writing below to be written, for the writing below was written the entire time, and peeling off the wax is comparable to removing a curtain or partition that prevents one from seeing the writing.

C. The opinion of Rabbi Akiva Eiger (Orach Chaim, siman 32) is that indeed there is no prohibition of erasing here, but if in doing so one repairs the book so that it can be read, it is prohibited because one may not repair a utensil on Shabbat.

D. The opinion of the Pri Megadim (siman 340, Eshel Avraham, subsection) is that the prohibition of erasing applies specifically when one prepares parchment for writing. But creating the possibility of reading the writing does not involve a Torah prohibition, and at most it involves a rabbinic prohibition. Therefore, peeling wax from an empty place fit for writing two letters is prohibited by Torah law, whereas peeling wax from existing writing is at most only rabbinically prohibited.

The Mishnah Berurah (siman 340, subsection 10; Biur Halachah, s.v. she’al) brings all the opinions and rules that in practice one should not be lenient in this matter, since the view of important decisors is that it is prohibited by Torah law.

The Proof from Tefillin

Those who permit it prove the reasoning from the fact that there is a halachah regarding tefillin and a mezuzah that they must be “kesidran” — meaning that all the tefillin and mezuzot must be written in the order in which it is written in the Torah. If the scribe skips a word and leaves an empty space, continues onward, and afterward returns and fills in the missing word, the tefillin and mezuzot are invalid [unlike a Torah scroll and Megillot, where it is permitted from the outset to begin from the middle and complete them]. Moreover, even if the scribe wrote everything in order, but afterward one letter was erased from the tefillin or mezuzah and the scribe returned and wrote it again, the tefillin or mezuzah is invalid. On the other hand, if wax fell on part of the writing and he peeled it off, the tefillin and mezuzah are valid. It must therefore be that the writing is still considered written, and there is merely a partition technically preventing us from seeing it, and removing the partition is not considered renewed writing.

However, the Mishnah Berurah (Biur Halachah, siman 340, section 4, s.v. she’al) rejects this proof and maintains that although the writing was not nullified, and therefore the tefillin are valid even when covered with wax, because ultimately we have covered writing here, nevertheless, since it is technically impossible to read the writing, with respect to the labors of Shabbat, enabling the possibility of reading the writing is prohibited and is part of the melachah of erasing.

A Torah Scroll in Which Wax Is Found in the Middle of the Reading

In light of this, the question arises what to do during the Torah reading on Shabbat when, in the middle of the reading, it is discovered that one of the letters, or even several words, are covered with some dirt that can be peeled off easily without damaging the writing. Is it permitted to peel it off, and perhaps even obligatory so that the reader can read the reading from the text, or perhaps there is a prohibition of erasing here, and it is forbidden even though the reader will not be able to read these words from the Torah scroll?

The Mishnah Berurah (siman 340, subsection 10) rules that in practice we must be concerned that there may be a Torah prohibition in removing the wax or hardened dirt from the writing. Therefore, if the reader encounters dirt in the middle of the reading, he should read that word by heart, but one should not take out another Torah scroll. However, if the reader encounters the matter between aliyot, and he sees that in the next aliyah there is wax or dirt covering a letter or word, if there is another valid Torah scroll in the ark, he should return the present scroll to the ark, take out the second one, and continue the Torah reading with it.

Shulchan Aruch and Rema (Orach Chaim, siman 340, sections 3–4–5); Azmera Lishmecha (issues 55; 159).